Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rnnr's commentslogin

ffmpeg and x265 allow you to do this too. frame-threads=1 will use 1 thread per frame addressing the issue OP mentioned, without big perf penalty, in contrary to 'pools' switch which sets the threads to be used for encoding.


Memory mapped files also known as sections in VMS/NT have just two advantages:

  * Fewer context switches among user space / kernel syscalls

  * No need to copy _modified_ data into the swap. The behavior for read only data doesn't change

That's it, nothing miraculous about it.


No, it also shares them between multiple runs of the same process, and it reuses the pages that were in your file cache anyway.

> * Fewer context switches among user space / kernel syscalls

This is not necessarily true. There's lots of cases where it's actually slower.


> Fewer context switches among user space / kernel syscalls

Note that each page fault to read an mmaped page is also a context switch from user space into the kernel. The kernel entry/exit paths for syscalls and page faults have much in common.

Mmaped pages can in principle use fault-ahead to reduce the number of page faults when sequential access is detected. An equivalent reduction is available for read syscalls by reading larger blocks at a time.

In practice, mmap files are faster in some scenarios compared with read syscalls and slower in others. Same with O_DIRECT reads, those are faster in some scenarios and slower in others.


If you want the old stricter Google behavior be sure to check the "Verbatim" option under 'tools', or add "&tbs=li:1" to your uri. Around 2008 Google started testing a new search engine logic, codenamed caffeine?, which eventually became the default. Without being sure, I think verbatim uses the old engine which wasn't trying to be smarter than you and your query, certainly is stricter and reminds the old Google a lot.


True. Aware of verbatim, though oddly forget and assume “quoted” text is verbatim. Personally I would perfect Google provide option to have verbatim on by default and enable non-verbatim per keyword; obviously average user would not like that.

EDIT: Tested if verbatim flag fixed the issue above, it did not; Google still randomly returns or does not return results, returns description with the query shown in description (or does not), etc

Proof verbatim does not help:

https://ibb.co/W6S08D3

Oddly, if you get no results, and add [stack exchange] to query, which in theory should be from same index since it a more narrow subset of the prior, does return results, which is odd:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22test+test+test+test+test+...

https://ibb.co/DkRcpV6


Ultimately this 'frustration' is always caused by loose typing/inexistent data model and not by the iterability of strings itself.


Agreed. A good tip for this is to try to find the earliest version/commit of the project you are interested into.


it's subjective of course, but I find context manager decorators very pythonic, I still remember the 'whoa! that's beautiful' moment when I 1st learned about them.

But most importantly, generators as enclosures are used everywhere today with the whole async-await paradigm.


I absolutely agree – it's the specific usage in the class that I don't like. Having a factory instead of using the constructor, with that IMHO not that obvious interaction with the context manage. A factory that is actually a context manager just seems non-trivial, and given that there is more straightforward solution available, I would avoid it.


It's wet :) (under water surface)

The claim of the article that mount Everest is the tallest point from the earth's center happens because earth's surface, relative to its size, is as smooth as a billiard ball. Even the tallest mountains are nothing. So high mountains located at the equator can easily "outperform" higher mountains elsewhere.


Apparently it's not quite as smooth as a billiard ball. More like very fine sandpaper.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/10763/is-earth-...


And who is going to stop them, when even multi-million companies just shallow the pill(like GDPR) and even try to market it positively that they are gonna adopt it first.


>multi-million companies just shallow the pill

They're very happy. It's not a "pill" to swallow, it's a tool to squash any small competitor.


Big business massively lobbied against the GDPR. One big reason it ended up so strict is because the final negotiations happened to coincide with the Snowden revelations, giving cover for politicians to resist the lobbying.


Plus it gives easy access to the government to peek at your data without any significant clause. Your data are theirs too now.


That's not how it works. They don't send a guy to look at your databases.


So how do they know if the response with the data a user requests, are all we've got about them, and if indeed where stored the proper way?


Generally they don't, until something happens that reveals the contrary. Like the Cambridge Analytica fiasco.


As far as I know, you pay for an audit yourself, and then you send them the results.


How difficult would be to pay auditor to close their eyes? Do you need another audit?


Sorry, I don't know the details.


he probably haven't heard the term "Revolving door". Simple study of antitrust policies would reveal him that this is the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)


I'm pretty sure previous privacy laws did little to EU businesses. (Some local more restrictive ones like German neither.) LThis one will not do anything much like you said either. There ate much mote critical laws that are being tampered with such as tax code and employment laws.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: